Roads Category

The Washington Post reported yesterday that the Government Accountability Office has begun a study to look at the pros and cons of moving the Forest Service from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Interior.

Apparently the Department of Interior was the Forest Service’s first home, though it was transferred to the Department of Agriculture in 1905 and has been there ever since, while the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and US Fish and Wildlife Service are all housed at Interior.  Some argue that all of the major public land management agencies should be under one roof, and there are merits to the argument, but questions as well.

There have been numerous past suggestions to move the agency out of Agriculture, though none have been successful to date.  According to a March 11 letter from the GAO to the Department of Interior, this current GAO study would address the following questions: 1) What options exist for consolidating the Forest Service into Interior? 2) What are the political strengths and weaknesses of each option? 3) What challenges exist to implementing these options and what are potential means for overcoming these challenges?

These questions may or may not get at the real natural resources problems of moving the agency from one department to another, as opposed to the political problems.  In addition, they don’t seem to directly address the fiscal costs or savings of moving the agency.

When some people think of Interior they think of the Park Service, and assume that moving the Forest Service over might result in management more akin to National Park management – generally protective regulations with an emphasis on recreation.  But the Bureau of Land Management is also in the Department of Interior.  And management at the BLM is very resource extraction heavy, especially when it comes to minerals.  The BLM actually has control over much mineral leasing on Forest Service lands as it is.  So while conservationists and recreationists might think about the National Park Service model if the Forest Service were to move, oil and gas companies are probably thinking about the BLM model, and salivating at the opportunity to even further streamline permitting processes for minerals, oil and gas extraction.

All that said, there is some logic to housing all of the natural resource agencies in one place.  If that were to happen, and the agency were to be moved, it would also provide opportunities for clarifying the purpose and mission of the Forest Service.  That’s a big can of worms to open, and one where conservationists might not have a lot of control over the outcome.  At this point, it looks like we’ll just have to wait and see what the GAO report says.

The Forest Service recently sent out an e-alert about a success story entitled "A Winning Combination:  OHV Access and Stored Roads."  The Forest Service proposes that off-road vehicle access can be maintained on removed roads.  But it seems they are missing one of the key points of removing the roads.  With this new proposal, the agency is putting in hardened stream crossings and waterbars on these "stored roads" to maintain motorized vehicle access.  While on the surface this "winning combination" may seem like a good compromise, a deeper look reveals that this approach may end up causing more harm to the environment through direct release of oil and gas into perennially running streams (formerly protected by culverts or bridges), erosion caused by vehicle passage and provide continued motorized access into sensitive wildlife habitat.  Typically, when roads are "stored" they are not available for any vehicular access.  By allowing continued ORV use, they are defeating most of the purpose of the road storage program.

The Forest Service is conveniently forgetting that these roads will still require maintenance to keep them safe for public motorized access and to prevent many of the environmental problems caused by decaying roads and by off-road vehicles. The agency claims it's a win-win situation because it enables them to meet the delicate balance between just enough motorized use to control vegetation growth and "too much" motorize use which would cause erosion of the road bed, ruts, potholes, and ditch drainage issues.  Unfortunately, they've forgotten that continued access on a stored road, will, in general, only continue to expand the impacts that road is having.  And the problem is more significant, because now the road will no longer be on the same maintenance schedule.  Closed and stored roads should be closed and stored to all vehicular use, otherwise the actions taken to store the road will not reap the ecological benefits that are so desperately needed.

Some good news for beaches and beach go-ers! On Wednesday, February 6th, the California Coastal Commission voted 8-2 to reject the planned 241 Toll Road, (which would have been located about halfway between LA and San Diego), and protected the internationally-known surfing spot, Trestles, and San Onofre State Beach. Thousands turned out for this historic meeting in nearby Del Mar, CA, making it clear to the commissioners that the destruction of state parks and coastal resources is unacceptable.

The record-breaking crowd was comprised of a diverse cross-section of beach users including surfers, students, families, seniors, fishermen as well as a large number of Native American tribal representatives. Also on hand was a massive contingent from the surf industry, including various manufacturers, shapers, media representatives and pro athletes.

Supporters of the Foothill South testified that the road was needed to accommodate development in southern Orange County and take some of the burden off I-5, the heaviest traveled corridor between Los Angeles and San Diego.

Opponents countered that the road would destroy habitat for half a dozen threatened or endangered species, including the Pacific pocket mouse. They also said it would degrade a popular campground and create a concrete eyesore in the center of the park, which stretches from coastal bluffs to inland canyons.

Surfers worried that the road could block erosion from the San Mateo Creek watershed, which they believe contributes to the world-class surfing conditions at Trestles, a venue for major contests.

Mark Delaplaine, who directed the commission's staff analysis, said the highway would violate provisions of the Coastal Act related to endangered species, wetlands, public access, recreation, surfing, Indian sites and greenhouse gas emissions.

While Wildlands CPR's work mainly concerns public land roads, all roads have impacts, and this 16 mile stretch, which would have cost $875 million dollars (that's $54.6 million/mile!), would have affected the beaches and surrounding areas in numerous ways, as Delaplaine, above, stated.

Having surfed at San Onofre a few times with my two sons, I can vouch for this slice of California coast that is still relatively clean, habitat-rich (great whites have been spotted there), and evokes the mellow, surfing, family spirit of southern California culture thought long gone.

I was monitoring off-road vehicle online bulletin boards the other day when I came across an interesting post, debating the merits of Dave Havlick's piece on demography and off-road vehicles. In the forum exchange, hosted on "Team Mudnuts 4x4 Club, Inc.," I found it incredibly interesting looking at the rationals expressed for the conversion of public lands into off-road vehicle playgrounds. These rationals were completely anthropocentric, only concerned about the wants and pleasure of human beings:

So should all of our public lands be seen from 2-5 miles in from the perimeter? That's ridiculous.

Or another response:

it would be wrong to make it all off limits to all but a few of the healthiest hikers.

Or another:

the local economy in the area depends on these parks to be accessible.

While all of the above arguments are familiar criticisms of environmental protection, they all place the human being at the center of the universe. They all completely deny the human obligation to protect the natural world. Plants and animals have an intrinsic right to exist regardless of the pleasure that humans get out of their existence. To base arguments for a particular agenda completely on anthropocentric rationals is a dangerous route to go down. We must recognize the importance of biodiversity protection and ecosystem health in choosing our forms of recreation and in forming policy on our public lands.

Check out this great guest editorial in the San Jose Mercury News, from former FS Chief Mike Dombeck regarding $65 million in proposed spending on Forest Service road removal: Deterioration of forest roads threatens our drinking water

While Dombeck's editorial focuses on California, the problems are the same throughout the country. Wildlands CPR is very involved in this funding effort through our participation in the Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative. Read more about the Washington Initiative right here on our website.

Check out this article on removing roads in the Lolo National Forest, in western Montana.(http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/10/11/news/top/news01.txt) Although Wildlands CPR isn't mentioned in the article, we've been working on this project over the past two years. And good job to Montana Trout for pulling the funding together so the Lolo can rip some more roads, to improve streams and forest habitat. Lord knows there are plenty to rip.

While the recent news that a griz was found (and unfortunately accidently killed) in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area has dropped off the media's radar, the public policy implications are only just beginning. Especially in light that genetic analysis on the bear indicates that it came from northern Idaho. King's Outdoor World Blog explains:

The origin of this bear highlights the importance of movement areas on the western edge of the Bitterroot ecosystem, including the area along the Montana-Idaho border between Highway 200 and Lookout Pass; the section of Interstate 90 between Lookout Pass and St. Regis; and the St. Joe River drainage, north of the Clearwater drainage where he was shot.

Wildlife managers don’t know how the bear got to Kelly Creek, but the journey probably involved the areas listed above, which form the most direct route between the southern Selkirks and the northern end of the Bitterroot. That journey underscores the importance of migration corridors in grizzly bear recovery and for all wildlife movement.

That journey also underscores the importance of a comprehensive restoration policy within the Clearwater and Idaho Panhandle National Forests. While the Clearwater National Forest has done an immense amount to address road and restoration issues, especially in partnership with the Nez Perce Tribe, the fact remains that road maintenance funds are inadequate and many roads have fallen into disrepair (or have outright failed). This state of current affairs in Idaho (along with similar conditions in certain Montana national forests), has important implications should the Endangered Species Action protections of griz begin to apply to the Bitterroots. Roads harm grizzly populations, there is no doubt about that:

As roads are punched into bear habitat, their populations and habitat fragmenta major mechanism by which grizzly bear populations have been severely reduced. Fragmentation causes populations to become more isolated and vulnerable to extinction, especially when human-caused mortality continues. This is particularly troublesome to large carnivores such as grizzlies, which require large home ranges.

Thus we reach a point of decision: grizzly bears are entering the Bitterroots, they are traveling through terrain extremely impacted by unmaintained forest roads, and they are still protected by the ESA. We must act now to further existing restoration efforts in the Clearwater and Idaho Panhandle National Forests, and enact new efforts currently are not underway. The fact that griz populations are rebounding is indeed great news, and we have great opportunity to move restoration efforts forward in helping grizzlies naturally return to their original range.

"Fair Chase" is an important concept for hunters. The Boone and Crockett Club defines it as "the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals."

If the title of this YouTube video, "chasing deer on dirbike," doesn't give you an idea, I believe that this is way beyond fair chase.